7 ms·

> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws tha

> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (only if they want to) and install their own root certificates. Others think individuals can’t be trusted, and so we should let tech companies dictate what is safe for everyone else.

wiz21c 5y ago
> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? In the US, I think, some companies sell weapons and nobody seems to care if people can hurt themselves with them.
- ff317 5y ago
  The comparison is more appropriate than you maybe even intended. Cars are considered weapons (e.g. driving at someone is assault with a deadly weapon), and cars are very dangerous in general and kill lots of people (and not just the drivers!). Yet, we still want right-to-repair on cars.
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    we HAVE right to repair on cars, and we've had it for decades. it's why the OBD-II port is standardized and mandated. it's why you can buy tools built only by the auto manufacturers for working on their own cars. it's why auto manufacturers are required to sell every part and every tool to end customers for at least 10 years after a model year is no longer manufactured. it's why third-party replacement parts are available AT ALL. people forget all this. this is the same thing people want for farm vehicles and personal electronics. we got it done for cars and trucks in the late 1980s. I don't understand why it's so hard to get lawmakers on the side of the customer --their constituents-- today.
- vageli 5y ago
  It's ridiculous they sell knives in supermarkets, where anyone could procure them and without background checks.
sneak 5y ago
I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is also buying, in a sense, a remote managed security service for the device at the same time. The net effect of this is that millions of people now have devices mostly free of the most egregious malware (and it's limited to just spyware, delivered via the App Store). For most users, this is a better state of affairs (at least in peacetime, or outside of China/Vietnam/Russia/etc).
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  It's only a good argument if you assume that Apple is fundamentally interested in consumer security. It isn't. Apple is fundamentally interested in control. Security, however Apple defines it, is a chosen means to the extent that is fulfills the company's primary goal. That's not to say that Apple should behave like a charitable force. A company's goals and decisions are its own prerogative. But as we've seen with the revelations of the Epic trial, the Darth Vader-style rule changes, updates that interfere with the basic operation of the device, etc., you're not just buying into a remotely managed system like a remote desktop at a colocation center. You're buying into the blackbox of Apple's present and future business decisions whether that suits your needs or not. Should security no longer justify the cost to Apple, they'll contort the meaning of the word to suit their ends just like Tim Cook has done to the word "equal" during his congressional hearing.
  - sneak 5y ago
    > You're buying into the blackbox of Apple's present and future business decisions whether whether that suits your needs or not. You don't have to install updates.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      iOS updates aren't forced, no. However, if you install an update to try it out, or because you didn't realize that it would e.g. break 32bit support, you can never downgrade again (unless you happen to be within a two-week-ish period.)
spicybright 5y ago
Absolutely when it comes to tech. It's fairly inconsequential sideloading something to your phone. Medical devices I think should need a someone well versed to work on it. With cars, the current model most states in the US have is a good middle ground. You can do whatever you want to your car, but it needs to pass a safety inspection every 2 years to drive it legally. The inspections in my state are fairly comprehensive. Airbags, seat belts, headlight brightness, and structural stability of the frame to name a few. It also helps the US has a strong car culture with tons of experienced DIY-ers, which I imagine helps.
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  I think we should just have some pretty clear literature that if you modify a device, the manufacturer is not responsible for any injuries it might cause you. Modify a dishwasher and now it fills your kitchen with soap bubbles? Modify a CPAP machine and get killed by it? Not the manufacturer's fault. The US is too litigation happy as it is...
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    IANAL or even a law-enthusiast, but surely we already have case law on this if nothing else? You can't sue the car company if you remove the breaks in your car... right?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure that "we didn't cause the harm" is a good defense to a claim that they caused harm.
  - bastijn 5y ago
    By passing a right to repair on medical devices you also open up the aftermarket for repairs. Would you like to be handed a medical device by your insurance company that has been repaired by an untrained person that considers himself to be a handyman? Or be put in a scanner that was repaired by a service engineer from a broker that is cutting corners to win in the competing market. Without clear quality and regulatory control there must be an objective method to discern between personal repairs and non-personal ones. Disclaimer: didn't read the actual right to repair being passed in detail. Not sure if it does discern already.
Too 5y ago
If one thinks that self driving cars are scary. Imagine having Look ma! I improved the autopilot in my Tesla!! driving on public roads or being sold 2nd hand. Car SW that can control the vehicle motion goes through very rigorous ISO processes, it's not something you just casually tinker with as an individual. Given its hard to visually inspect, one needs a way to understand if a car has been modified or not. This article also on the front page here yesterday explains the complexity and cost of integration verification https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/software-eating-car https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/adv... Enabling serious third party aftermarket companies that have gone through same level of certification, nothing against that, but individuals, not so sure.
- _Understated_ 5y ago
  > Look ma! I improved the autopilot in my Tesla!! I see where you are coming from but right now, if autopilot kills someone, then Tesla are on the hook for it (ok, there may be grey areas but ultimately, they made it so that has to point back to them in a big way when it comes to court cases). However, if I jailbreak my autopilot and kill someone, it's me that has to face the music! I don't see the harm in scaling the jailbreak hoops you need to jump through. For example, if I wanted to safely jailbreak my iPhone, there is nothing stopping Apple having an official app that you need to get a special key from Apple for. Maybe a phone call or something, or an email to support. It would come with a caveat that says your jailbroken phone forfeits any warranty claims. Fair enough. When you are talking about jailbreaking a Tesla, there could be other layers. Like, for example, you have to go to a Tesla dealer where they explain the legal and support ramifications and whatnot. Then you sign a bit of paper with witnesses. Then they send you out a usb dongle in the post after a few days etc. Maybe, though with the Tesla, there would be limits. Like, you can't get the source code, or you are only able to to X things with it. You get the idea... there could potentially be a scale for stuff like this. I'm just chucking stuff out there, this isn't a realistic example so please put your pitch forks away :)
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  There's an additional wrinkle for cars that make them unlike other devices, which is that they drive on public roads. I can't drive on a public road without a license, and neither should software. But if little Johnny wants to drive his Tesla around a private racetrack with homespun Autopilot software, by all means! It's hardly the weirdest hobby, and who knows—maybe he'll grow up and form a startup that uses modified Tesla's to transport products in large warehouses. That's how innovation happens.

wiz21c 5y ago

ff317 5y ago
The comparison is more appropriate than you maybe even intended. Cars are considered weapons (e.g. driving at someone is assault with a deadly weapon), and cars are very dangerous in general and kill lots of people (and not just the drivers!). Yet, we still want right-to-repair on cars.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  we HAVE right to repair on cars, and we've had it for decades. it's why the OBD-II port is standardized and mandated. it's why you can buy tools built only by the auto manufacturers for working on their own cars. it's why auto manufacturers are required to sell every part and every tool to end customers for at least 10 years after a model year is no longer manufactured. it's why third-party replacement parts are available AT ALL. people forget all this. this is the same thing people want for farm vehicles and personal electronics. we got it done for cars and trucks in the late 1980s. I don't understand why it's so hard to get lawmakers on the side of the customer --their constituents-- today.
vageli 5y ago
It's ridiculous they sell knives in supermarkets, where anyone could procure them and without background checks.

sneak 5y ago

I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is also buying, in a sense, a remote managed security service for the device at the same time. The net effect of this is that millions of people now have devices mostly free of the most egregious malware (and it's limited to just spyware, delivered via the App Store). For most users, this is a better state of affairs (at least in peacetime, or outside of China/Vietnam/Russia/etc).

Dracophoenix 5y ago
It's only a good argument if you assume that Apple is fundamentally interested in consumer security. It isn't. Apple is fundamentally interested in control. Security, however Apple defines it, is a chosen means to the extent that is fulfills the company's primary goal. That's not to say that Apple should behave like a charitable force. A company's goals and decisions are its own prerogative. But as we've seen with the revelations of the Epic trial, the Darth Vader-style rule changes, updates that interfere with the basic operation of the device, etc., you're not just buying into a remotely managed system like a remote desktop at a colocation center. You're buying into the blackbox of Apple's present and future business decisions whether that suits your needs or not. Should security no longer justify the cost to Apple, they'll contort the meaning of the word to suit their ends just like Tim Cook has done to the word "equal" during his congressional hearing.
- sneak 5y ago
  > You're buying into the blackbox of Apple's present and future business decisions whether whether that suits your needs or not. You don't have to install updates.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    iOS updates aren't forced, no. However, if you install an update to try it out, or because you didn't realize that it would e.g. break 32bit support, you can never downgrade again (unless you happen to be within a two-week-ish period.)

spicybright 5y ago

Absolutely when it comes to tech. It's fairly inconsequential sideloading something to your phone. Medical devices I think should need a someone well versed to work on it. With cars, the current model most states in the US have is a good middle ground. You can do whatever you want to your car, but it needs to pass a safety inspection every 2 years to drive it legally. The inspections in my state are fairly comprehensive. Airbags, seat belts, headlight brightness, and structural stability of the frame to name a few. It also helps the US has a strong car culture with tons of experienced DIY-ers, which I imagine helps.

Teknoman117 5y ago
I think we should just have some pretty clear literature that if you modify a device, the manufacturer is not responsible for any injuries it might cause you. Modify a dishwasher and now it fills your kitchen with soap bubbles? Modify a CPAP machine and get killed by it? Not the manufacturer's fault. The US is too litigation happy as it is...
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  IANAL or even a law-enthusiast, but surely we already have case law on this if nothing else? You can't sue the car company if you remove the breaks in your car... right?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure that "we didn't cause the harm" is a good defense to a claim that they caused harm.
- bastijn 5y ago
  By passing a right to repair on medical devices you also open up the aftermarket for repairs. Would you like to be handed a medical device by your insurance company that has been repaired by an untrained person that considers himself to be a handyman? Or be put in a scanner that was repaired by a service engineer from a broker that is cutting corners to win in the competing market. Without clear quality and regulatory control there must be an objective method to discern between personal repairs and non-personal ones. Disclaimer: didn't read the actual right to repair being passed in detail. Not sure if it does discern already.

Too 5y ago

If one thinks that self driving cars are scary. Imagine having Look ma! I improved the autopilot in my Tesla!! driving on public roads or being sold 2nd hand. Car SW that can control the vehicle motion goes through very rigorous ISO processes, it's not something you just casually tinker with as an individual. Given its hard to visually inspect, one needs a way to understand if a car has been modified or not. This article also on the front page here yesterday explains the complexity and cost of integration verification https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/software-eating-car https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/adv... Enabling serious third party aftermarket companies that have gone through same level of certification, nothing against that, but individuals, not so sure.

_Understated_ 5y ago
> Look ma! I improved the autopilot in my Tesla!! I see where you are coming from but right now, if autopilot kills someone, then Tesla are on the hook for it (ok, there may be grey areas but ultimately, they made it so that has to point back to them in a big way when it comes to court cases). However, if I jailbreak my autopilot and kill someone, it's me that has to face the music! I don't see the harm in scaling the jailbreak hoops you need to jump through. For example, if I wanted to safely jailbreak my iPhone, there is nothing stopping Apple having an official app that you need to get a special key from Apple for. Maybe a phone call or something, or an email to support. It would come with a caveat that says your jailbroken phone forfeits any warranty claims. Fair enough. When you are talking about jailbreaking a Tesla, there could be other layers. Like, for example, you have to go to a Tesla dealer where they explain the legal and support ramifications and whatnot. Then you sign a bit of paper with witnesses. Then they send you out a usb dongle in the post after a few days etc. Maybe, though with the Tesla, there would be limits. Like, you can't get the source code, or you are only able to to X things with it. You get the idea... there could potentially be a scale for stuff like this. I'm just chucking stuff out there, this isn't a realistic example so please put your pitch forks away :)
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
There's an additional wrinkle for cars that make them unlike other devices, which is that they drive on public roads. I can't drive on a public road without a license, and neither should software. But if little Johnny wants to drive his Tesla around a private racetrack with homespun Autopilot software, by all means! It's hardly the weirdest hobby, and who knows—maybe he'll grow up and form a startup that uses modified Tesla's to transport products in large warehouses. That's how innovation happens.